Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:02:25 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers -- CONF_FILES variable Message-ID: <CAF6rxgkpAWRVz5vueUfVpuZcdYzKyn0c1K9pAmNwgbOUp=TtYg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <64bc4d1f59e39f71f77ced1aed64e734@etoilebsd.net> References: <BANLkTikvMU2dK=aN=hFgxA8wfvUitmfbRA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinBC184bwcQ1Sfyy9xsw9usqr3SJQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=nQByFgGNP--hkA4AF04Sw95s8jw@mail.gmail.com> <4E0C5B7A.5060102@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgnkxuGcNk8O7vz0aLFBo2jLU-G%2BxaXSAS1Zvik2%2B%2BYtiw@mail.gmail.com> <4E109521.10209@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgmiLvMFiUWv3BLYd7UjxJpOH3DBAPBkT5wOL=wM2UhrGw@mail.gmail.com> <64bc4d1f59e39f71f77ced1aed64e734@etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The reason I choose pkgconf (we can change that name) is that it concerns > only configuration files that the maintainers DO want. > > I want to make sure that maintainers are looking at the samples the proprose > to provide a usable sample, not the default one from the distfile (the > default one can still be provided as an example.) So, this suffix is only for configuration files that port maintainers write and included sample files from upstream would not have this suffix? Why would the maintainer be writing sample conf files? It is not the maintainer's job to write documentation for the upstream project. The only case I could see this becoming an issue is if the default configuration file ignores hier(1) and a REINPLACE is needed. I do _not_ want to see sample configuration files being written for ports unless a considerable amount of rework is needed to make the application run on FreeBSD. > I wanted that pkgng and the ports in general can manage default usable > configuration files, and to distinguish them from the samples. Thanks crees@ > has done the job I wanted to do myself so that and he has done it right. I am confused. I thought Chris's option was for the upstream sample configuration files.My understanding is that it replaces the logic of "only delete the real config file if it does not differ from the sample file". Why then does it matter who wrote the sample since the logic works the same way? Either we will need multiple copies of this macro, one for "official" files and the other for "package" files or the logic will still have to be replicated per port for non-included samples. IMHO the suffix (and type of sample file) should not be touched by the macro. Perhaps I misunderstand what will be new in pkgng or what this patch provides? -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgkpAWRVz5vueUfVpuZcdYzKyn0c1K9pAmNwgbOUp=TtYg>